Skip to content

Reports - 57. page

China’s State Media Rebukes U.S. NGOs and Private Foundations (part three)

On December 26, 2007, Xinhua News Agency published an article titled “An Investigation of Fake Think Tanks in the United States.” The article listed four U.S. think tanks, calling them “non-governmental organizations funded by the government,” employing “soft daggers” through “financing, supporting, planning subversive tactics, etc. against the targeted nations.” The following is part three of the translation of the entire article. [1]
Freedom House: Veteran Subversion Experts

Freedom House is headquartered in Washington, D.C. with offices in about 12 countries. Freedom House is well known for its annual survey of global political rights and civil liberties in various countries. Freedom House was founded in 1941 and is a veteran “subversion expert" in the United States.

Although it claims to be an "independent think-tank," three-quarters of Freedom House’s funding comes from the government. During the Cold War era, it supported some political dissidents from the Soviet Union and Poland.  Now its tentacles have reached the corners of the CIS and Eastern Europe.  Further, it has established footholds in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Latin America.

Freedom House is governed by its Board of Trustees that is composed of former senior government officials, business and labor leaders, writers and journalists.  Former CIA Director Woosley was the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Current members of the Board include former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, former President of the World Bank.

Freedom House often publishes reports critical of other countries, causing great dissatisfaction in the international community. Western scholars also think that these reports apply the standards of the United States and are full of prejudice.

The more important task of the organization is to promote human rights and freedom in some countries with the goal of subverting the governments. At present, the organization’s focus is Korea and Africa. According to British Financial Times reports, the organization is funded by the United States State Department and is one of several organizations engaged in “secret activities" in Iran.

Freedom House is unequivocal when it comes to its mission of subversion of foreign governments. The organization in a so-called research report said, "subverting foreign government is a catalyst for broad and non-violent civil opposition, specifically boycott of goods, mass protests, blockades, strikes and disobedience, thereby eroding the legitimacy and authoritarian regime and their supporters, including military loyalty."

Chomsky, a liberal professor from Massachusetts Institute of Technology pointed out back in 1988 that Freedom House, the CIA, Radio Free Europe, and other government agencies act in unison for a long time as propaganda machines for the United States Government and international right-wing forces.
Classical Cases

In 2005, riots broke out in Kyrgyzstan. A political base that President Akayev spent 15 painstaking years building, was totally destroyed within a month. According to the American media, Freedom House played an important role in it.

My Important News is a newspaper by the opposition in Kyrgyzstan.  During the political turbulence, the newspaper accepted at least $70,000 in grants from the United States Government. The newspaper was produced in a printing shop in Freedom House’s office in Kyrgyzstan. Akayev ordered the turn-off of the power to Freedom House’s branch. The next day, the United States embassy in Kyrgyzstan sent two emergency generators to Freedom House’s branch. The generators were clearly marked "Property of the United States Government."

On the eve of parliamentary election in Kyrgyzstan, "My Important News" contained a photo showing Akayev’s "mansion" under construction. This move immediately evoked strong reaction throughout Kyrgyzstan. People were so dissatisfied with the Akayev government.  At that time, opposition leaders funded by Freedom House distributed the newspaper, free of charge, in truckloads.

[1] Xinhua News Agency, December 26, 2007

Xinhua: “The U.S. Speculates That China Is Stepping up Military Technical Espionage Activities”

China has long attempted to defuse concerns that the United States has about China’s military buildup, particularly the “China Threat Theory.”  On February 8, 2008, Xinhua commented on the January 29, 2008, U.S. Congressional hearing held by the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Judiciary Subcommittee, on the issue of espionage and cyber-crime. The following is a translation of the full text of the Xinhua article written by the U.S. correspondent of Global Times, a newspaper under Xinhua.[1]

The U.S. Speculates That China Is Stepping up Military Technical Espionage Activities to Build High-Tech Weapons

On January 29, 2008 the Crime Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the U.S. Congress held a hearing in which U. S. counter-intelligence officers briefed Congressmen on China’s “rampant espionage activities.” After the hearing a Congressman claimed, “China’s espionage activities have become the number one threat to the United States.” In fact, in many cases last year, Western media, organizations and individuals made allegations about China espionage theory and the China hackers theory, with no evidence whatsoever. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly refuted these allegations. The content of this Congressional hearing is “the same old tune."  It is nothing new at all compared to what was alleged in the past.

Claiming China Is Stepping up Military Espionage

The conservative Washington Times reported on January 30 that the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Judiciary Subcommittee of the U.S. House held a hearing to discuss whether existing law is sufficient to deal with foreign espionage, but the hearing ultimately focused on China’s "espionage activities" against the United States.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the U. S.  Department of Justice, Patrick Rowan states that both China and Iran are stepping espionage on military technology.  “Of great concern recently is the substantial and growing national security threat posed by illegal foreign acquisition of restricted U.S. military technology. China and Iran pose particular U.S. export-control concerns." 

Rowan said that spying today includes traditional Cold-War-style espionage as well as sophisticated operations to gather trade secrets and export-controlled military technology. “Recent prosecutions have highlighted illegal exports of stealth missile technology, military aircraft components, naval warship data, night-vision equipment and other restricted technology destined for those countries."
"China’s Espionage Is The Biggest Threat To The United States."

Larry Wortzel, a former military counterintelligence officer and current chairman of the Congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, testified, “China is acquiring or shamelessly using stolen technology to rapidly produce new and lethal high-technology weapons. This significantly contributes to China’s military modernization and development of new capabilities,"
Wortzel said that after a year of hearings and research, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission concluded that China’s espionage activities strain the U.S. counterintelligence resources and have become the greatest threat to the United States. He said that China’s cyber-spying and computer attacks are major worries, that the U.S. government and private sector networks are targets, and that counterespionage services are "overwhelmed" in trying to counter the threat.

After the hearing, Rep. Randy Forbes said, "China has now become the biggest espionage threat to the United States." “It is a real problem that is costing us a lot of dollars and potentially puts our soldiers at risk down the road." Wortzel and Forbes called for further efforts to step up the U.S. counter-intelligence against China.

Chinese Experts: No need to Pay Attention to Such Speculation

The U.S. correspondent of Global Times noticed that since "China’s espionage threat" has become the subject that the U.S. right-wing often speculates about, the hearing did not draw too much mainstream media attention in the United States, and only The Washington Times and the World Journal (U.S. edition) have reported it.

Ni Feng, a research fellow at the Institute of American Studies under the China Academy of Social Sciences told the Global Times correspondent in an interview that there was no need too be concerned about The Washington Times report. The newspaper primarily reflects right-wing positions. The authenticity of its reports has always been questioned by outside world. The American journalist Bill Gertz who wrote this article is also an anti-China figure.

Ni Feng holds that The Washington Times does not have much influence in the United States and often attracts eyeballs by attacking China. The best way to deal with it is to ignore the report. At present, people in the United States are more concerned about the presidential election, the situation in Pakistan, the situation in Iraq, and the Korean and Iranian nuclear issue. Anti-China voices do not get much special attention. Other academia has also noted that the true purpose of U. S. intelligence in exaggerating the "China espionage threat" is to get a larger Congressional budget.

[1] Xinhua, February 8, 2008

A Lower Domestic Standard for Consumption Goods?

For a long period of time, although merchandize made in China has frequently been recalled in other countries, China’s domestic merchandize has seldom been recalled due to poor quality. Not only does China lack the disciplinary mechanism to recall poor quality products, except drugs; China’s merchandize for domestic consumption usually has a safety standard that is lower than international norms. The following is a translation of the report from Voice of America. [1]

The Quality of Merchandize for Domestic Consumption in China is Lower Than Exported Merchandize

By Sun Feng
January 9, 2008

Although we have seen that outside of China, Chinese made products have frequently been recalled due to poor quality, China’s domestic merchandize seldom faces similar problems. Not only does China lack the disciplinary mechanism to recall poor quality products; China’s merchandize for domestic consumption usually has a safety standard that is lower than international norms.

In May and June of 2007, many countries announced the recall of tainted toothpaste made in China, because it contained the poisonous chemical diethylene glycol (DEG). The very same toothpaste has never been removed from China’s merchandize shelves.

In June of 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a warning that toothpaste imported from China contained more than 4% DEG and warned the public not to use toothpaste made in China.

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, an organization under China’s State Council, issued a public notice in July 2007 forbidding the use of DEG as a toothpaste ingredient, and banning its export. However, it did not ban the sale of toothpaste with DEG within China. To the contrary, the General Administration specified in this same public notice that toothpaste with less than 15.6% DEG would not harm anyone’s health, and that "consumers do not need to worry too much about their health if they have used this type of toothpaste."

For a long period of time, although merchandize made in China has frequently been recalled in other countries, China’s domestic merchandize has seldom been recalled due to poor quality. Not only does China lack the disciplinary mechanism to recall poor quality products, except drugs; China’s merchandize for domestic consumption usually has a safety standard that is lower than international norms.

Take the auto safety evaluation system as an example. The head-to-head collision standard in the U.S. is 56 kilometers per hour, while it is 50 kilometers per hour in China.
Gao Hongbing, the deputy minister of China’s Ministry of Agriculture admitted on Tuesday that China lagged behind other countries in setting up product standards and that there is still a gap between China and developed countries in this respect.

Wang Hai is the host of Wang Hai Hotline, a "consumers’ rights protection" group. According to Wang, establishing overly low standards for domestic merchandize occurred because no representatives for consumers were present when the standards were drafted.

"Why can’t China’s quality standards be improved?" asked Wang. "The key is, first of all, the standards were set by the leaders of the particular enterprise, with little or no involvement from the general public. In other words, the consumers’ rights protection group has no way to participate in the decision making process. In addition, we have virtually no on to speak for consumer’s interests. In China, there is no organization that truly represents consumers’ interests. The Consumers’ Association is a state-run organization. It can only serve a very limited purpose in protecting consumers. We also lack a third-party inspection organization. The inspection organizations we have are all state-run institutes."

According to Wang Hai, in the battle between consumers and entrepreneurs, the entrepreneurs have considerable resources while consumers have none. The government is usually overly lenient with enterprises, for the sake of economic development. In addition, many of the enterprises are either state-run companies or have government backing. All media outlets are state-run mouthpieces. They do not dare to offend their major advertising clients either.

However, the legal consultant of the Consumer Association of Beijing Qiu Baochang has a different point of view. According to Qiu, it is an inappropriate generalization to say the standards for domestic merchandize are lower and are higher for exports.

"Inside China we have our own standard," Qiu said. "As long as we meet this standard, we do not have any problem selling the product inside China. Of course it remains a question whether China’s domestic standard is the same as those of other countries. Can they ever be exactly the same? I don’t think it is possible to unify the standard, because there are issues like development of the market economy and scientific development."

He also said when drafting the standards the authorities had taken protecting consumers’ interests into consideration.

According to Mao Shoulong, director of the Department of Administration and Management at People’s University, many agricultural produces intended for export are refined goods. They are different from the products for domestic consumption. Although it’s a common belief that the standards for goods for domestic consumption should be improved, he believes that implementing those new standards will encounter many problems.
Mao said, "For example, many of the companies may be forced out of business. This year, the price of food itself is rising sharply. If we factor in the improvement of the processing technique and other investments, as well as training personnel and the management team, the cost will be high. It will bring a huge change to the market. If we cannot adjust to the change, the price may go up 100%, not just the 5%, 10% or 30% that we are experiencing right now. It may bring about some social problems."

Long Yongtu, the current general secretary of the Boao Forum for Asia, was the leading negotiation representative when China joined the WTO. Long also shared his opinion on this subject. He believed there was no need to have two different standards. "We had no other choice when China was a poor country." Long added, "Now things have changed. Chinese civilians’ well-being is as important as that of foreigners."

[1] Voice of America, January 9, 2008

Party Leadership Calls for Emancipation of the Mind

In the past year, the four Chinese characters “jie fang si xiang” or” emancipation of the mind” has repeatedly appeared in important places on government documents. The media as well as the general public are still fumbling for the real reasons behind the use of these words. Here, we provide translated excerpts from two articles appearing in mainland media.

Nanfang Weekend, January 17, “Party think tank calls for ‘emancipation of mind’”[1]
“After the 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (NCCCP), party and administrative leadership at the provincial level have widely used this term. They include the new Shanghai party chief, Yu Zhengsheng, Chongqing party chief, Bo Xilai. The new party chief of Guangdong Province, Wang Yang, has drawn the most attention from media. Wang gave his famous talk in the southern province, calling for “a new round of emancipation of mind.”

If you think that use of this term is a regional phenomenon, you may be underestimating the size of the wave. While people are hotly debating Wang’s talk, Shi Zhihong, the deputy director of the CCP Central Committee’s Policy Research Department, published an article on January 5th in Jiefang Daily entitled ‘The Party’s 17th NCCCP and the New Emancipation of the Mind from a New Starting Point — A Discussion of Various Aspects of the 17th NCCCP Report after Continued Reflection.’

It came to the author’s attention that the 12,000-character-long article did not receive much attention from the media. However, this article has a deeper meaning, considering the influence of Jiefang Daily among all the party newspapers as well as the author’s own workplace.

The CCP Central Committee’s Policy Research Department has always been the ruling party’s think tank. It drafts all types of documents for the party’s central leadership. Wu Mingyu, a former deputy director of the Development and Research Center under the State Council, told the author that the Central Committee’s Policy Research Department “ought to record and understand the developments of high-level officials’ thoughts, integrate various research agencies’ reports, and send important pieces to party leadership.” For an article written by the deputy director of the Central Committee’s Policy Research Department, one cannot simply take it as personal opinions. The author Shi Zhihong also was publicly announced as one of the members participating in the drafting of the 17th NCCCP report read by Hu Jintao at the Congress.

As early as before the 17th NCCCP took place, the official Xinhua News Agency published an article entitled ‘Looking Forward to the 17th NCCCP: Standing at a New Historic Height and Raising the Sail of Emancipation of Mind.’ The article said, ‘Emancipation of the mind without hesitation … is a new test for us.’ In the 17th NCCCP report, it said that ‘Emancipation of the mind is a magic weapon for developing socialism with Chinese characteristics.’
Shi’s article … added that ‘obviously, developing socialism with Chinese characteristics and continued emancipation of the mind is the main theme throughout the report.’

The article also said that, only around this ‘main theme,’ ‘one can truly understand the essence of the 17th NCCCP report, comprehend the mission of the party at this new historical point, and grasp the direction the party takes to continue on emancipation of the mind along the party’s new development and practices.’ The article added, ‘Therefore, emancipation of the mind ought to enter a new and higher realm.’”

People’s Forum on, “Why is emancipation of mind is even more necessary at this moment?” [2]

“Judging by the international trend, we need emancipation of the mind more now than at any other time. Globalization as an expansion of the domestic, economic activities is crucial to the long-term development of the global economic structure. During the current peaceful development, the powers and the distribution of interests are undergoing a deep reshuffle.

Only when we constantly emancipate the mind can we easily handle the developments, changes, and competition. Only then can we become successful, avoid losses, and achieve the goals of developing the nation and securing a position in the future global power map.

Judging by the domestic situation, we also need emancipation of the mind more than at any other time. With reform at a critical point, relationships among interest groups are getting more and more complicated. New situations and new problems are constantly emerging. Although our modernization has made great achievements, we continue to be at the preliminary stage of socialism for a long time. The pressures and tasks of development are thus imminent. Although people’s living conditions are continuously improving, there is a trend of deepening inequalities in income distribution between different regions and between rural and urban areas. Although the economy grows rapidly, social welfare, such as education and medical care, has not been able to keep up with it, making it difficult for people to receive medical care and education. Only if we constantly emancipate the mind can we calmly deal with future risks, safely pull through social transitions, protect the stability of the nation during reform and development, and guarantee the smooth progression of the modernization of socialism.”

There are bottom lines to emancipation of the mind.

The purpose to emancipation of the mind is to resolve real issues. However, this does not mean that we can say whatever we want to say, do whatever we want to do, and use whatever ways there are as long as it is for the purpose of resolving real issues.  There are bottom lines to emancipation of the mind, which is definitely not encouraging ‘running red lights’ or ‘paying edge ball.’ We must be clear-headed in our thoughts and firm in our political stance. We must especially insist on the fundamental political line of “one central task and two basic points” [3] and we must follow the constitution and laws. These are the bottom lines.
Emancipation of the mind should not deviate from economic development as the central task. We must put our attention on construction and development and treat them as the primary tasks for the nation.

Emancipation of the mind should not deviate from the ‘Four Cardinal Principles,’ in front of which there is no room for freedom. Although our economic structure is pluralistic and the distribution of interests is diversified, the history and the situation of our nation disallow a multi-party political system. We must keep a multi-party cooperation under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. We must insist on the full power and authority of the CCP in the administration, judiciary, economy, culture, and military. We cannot allow so called ‘judicial independence’ or ‘nationalization of military.’ We must insist on socialism, and walk the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. We must insist on the people’s democratic dictatorship and constantly develop socialistic democracy, thus be able to truly protect people’s benefits and protect the nation’s sovereignty, safety, unity, and stability. We must insist on the fundamental principles and implementations of the Marxism, Leninism, and Maoism. When we combine these with considerations for the constant changes in the current situation, we will be able to constantly enrich and develop the Marxism in practice.”

Nanfang Weekend, January 17, 2008
People’s Forum on, September 20, 2007
[3] “one central task and two basic points”
is the fundamental policy of the CCP at "Rudimentary Stage of Socialism" proposed ah the 13th NCCCP. The "one central task" refers to economic development as the central task; "two basic points" refers to upholding "Four Cardinal Principles" and "Reform and Opening."

China’s State Media Rebukes U.S. NGOs and Private Foundations (part two)

On December 26, 2007, Xinhua News Agency published an article titled “An Investigation of Fake Think Tanks in the United States.” The article listed four U.S. think tanks, calling them “non-governmental organizations funded by the government,” employing “soft daggers” through “financing, supporting, planning subversive tactics, etc. against the targeted nations.” The following is part two of the translation of the entire article. [1]
Financial Tycoon Assisting Government—Open Society Institute

Unlike NED, which was set up by the U.S. government, the Open Society Institute (OSI) was founded by George Soros, an American financial speculator. OSI and the Soros Foundation are one and the same organization under two different names, both headquartered in New York. In addition, Soros also established the Open Society Initiative for West Africa and the Open Society Initiative for South Africa.

Although not directly under the U.S. government, the objectives of OSI and the Soros Foundation to promote democracy and subvert foreign governments “coincide” with those of the U.S. government. It often acts in coordination with government agencies.

At present, the Soros Foundation has branches in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa, all under different names. The activities of the Soros Foundation have extended to over 60 countries and regions. Its modus operandi is that OSI initiates a project that is then implemented by branches of the Soros Foundation. The annual expenditures of the two organizations amount to $500 million and $400 million, respectively.

OSI and the Soros Foundation declare that they are “committed to building and maintaining an open society infrastructure and public facilities.” But critics point out that the “open society” is nothing but a brand name. Provision of aid and alleviation of poverty are but window dressings. The true intention of Soros is to export U.S. ideology and values to those countries deemed not sufficiently democratic and to make a “democratic wave;” thus, change of governments would pave the way for his own financial speculation. According to his theory, a “closed” society lacks in financial investment opportunities, and only by opening it up can he make a fortune.

Classical Cases

Soros was born in Eastern Europe. After rising to affluence and power in the United States, he has in mind at all times to transform his hometown. His foundation started to set foot in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) soon after the disintegration of the former Soviet Union.
In 1990, the Foundation established an International Renaissance Foundation in Ukraine and aggressively pursued “democratic infiltration.” As of 2004, it made a total investment of $82 million. In addition to establishing the headquarters in Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, the International Renaissance Foundation has opened 24 branches. It entered into Moldova in 1992 to promote Western values. In 1993, it chose Kyrgyzstan, considered in the West to be “Central Asia’s island of democracy,” and provided key support to the country’s independent media, targeting public health, culture, education, and other fields as the points of breakthroughs and rapid expansion. In 1994, it ventured into Georgia and maintains an official presence in Caucasus. In 1995, the Soros Foundation’s reach found its way into Kazakhstan in Central Asia, to be used as a bridgehead into Central Asia. It broke into Uzbekistan in 1996. In view of the strategic position of the Caucasus, the Soros Foundation included Azerbaijan and Armenia in its global network in 1997.

In Russia, there are about 10 so-called research institutions as well as Soros Foundation branches. The activities of OSI and the Soros Foundations in the CIS countries aim at promoting U.S. values of democracy and freedom and to help establish a pro-U.S. government.

At the end of 2004, an “orange revolution” broke out in Ukraine. Members of Congress of the United States disclosed that the Ukraine OSI under the Soros Foundation played an important role in the launch of Ukraine’s revolution. Yushchenko, who later became the prime minister, was a board member of the Ukraine OSI. In 2005, a “yellow revolution” broke out in Kyrgyzstan. Actually, the Kyrgyzstan OSI under the Soros Foundation had long been working on “democracy.”

[1] Xinhua News Agency, December 26, 2007

China’s State Media Rebukes U.S. NGOs and Private Foundations (part one)

On December 26, 2007, Xinhua News Agency published an article titled “An Investigation of Fake Think Tanks in the United States.” The article listed four U.S. think tanks, calling them “non-governmental organizations funded by the government,” employing “soft daggers” through “financing, supporting, planning subversive tactics, etc. against the targeted nations.” The following is part one of the translation of the entire article. [1]
To subvert other countries, the United States has always used two techniques concurrently. In Iraq, the United States openly employs the military. In comparison, in recent years the United States has used more of a “soft approach,” including financing, supporting, planning subversive tactics, and other means against the targeted nation.

The “soft daggers” are often waged by non-governmental organizations as think tanks, but funded by the government. From Eastern Europe and Latin America, to recently in Myanmar, those “color revolutions” and the political turmoil all have the faint shadow of “the second CIA” behind them.

Then, what are the modus operandi of these organizations and their commonly used approaches? Globe Magazine’s exclusive report will unveil the truth behind these “fake think tanks.”

“The Second CIA”

The United States plans and instigates “Color Revolutions” through non-governmental organizations disguised as think tanks and foundations. It is primarily the U.S. government that funds these fake think tanks. They are in fact instruments of the government to implement the government’s mission of subversion.

There are numerous non-governmental organizations in the United States, with complex relationships among themselves. Among them four stand out: the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Open Society Institute (Soros Foundation), Freedom House and the Albert Einstein Institute.

The Truth about the Second CIA – the National Foundation for Democracy

Almost all of the National Foundation for Democracy (NED)’s funding comes from a governmental appropriation by the U.S. Congress. The NED is in fact a government department, albeit a non-governmental organization, and acts in concert with the State Department, the CIA and the Agency for International Development. It is known as “the Second CIA.”

The NED’s network includes four affiliates: the Republican’s International Republican Institute, the Democrats’ National Democratic Institute, The Center for International Private Enterprise of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Solidarity Center of the AFL-CIO. Other recipients of NED grants include Democracy Magazine, the World Democracy Movement, the International Forum on Democracy, the Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellowship Program and the Center for International Media Assistance.
In 1982, the then President Reagan proposed an initiative to established a special agency to promote democracy throughout the world. The following year, the United States Congress passed the “State Department Authorization Act,” allocating $31.3 million to set up maintenance of the National Endowment for Democracy, with its headquarters in Washington, D.C. The foundation’s mission is primarily to engage in activities that the CIA cannot accomplish by law, such as supporting political parties in other countries.

Every year, the foundation receives government funding through a budget allocation of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID). In Fiscal Year 2004, its income amounted to $81.10 million, 79.25 of which was from government funding. Funding from other foundations was miniscule. Therefore the source of funding shows that it is completely a government entity.

The NED is a bipartisan organization. It allocates half of the Congress appropriated funds to the four affiliates and half to organizational applicants outside the United States.

The foundation is under the leadership of Carl Gershman, formerly a senior adviser to the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and Executive Director of Social Democrats, USA. The current Board of Directors includes dignitaries such as Lee Hamilton, the “911” incident Independent Inquiry Committee Co-Chairman, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Michael Fukuyama, the well known conservative theorist.

The NED’s network spreads throughout the world and its modus operandi is similar to that of the CIA. It supports the world’s largest right-wing business interests and representatives of political organizations. One of its founders, Allen Weinstein, said bluntly, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

Classic Examples

The classic example of the NED’s role in the subversion of foreign governments is Venezuela. Since 1999, when the left-wing Chavez government came to power in Venezuela, the United States has done everything possible to subvert the regime. The NED has played an important role.

The NED has carried out its activities through the U. S. AID Office in the U. S. Embassy in Venezuela, and three “private” offices controlled by the U. S. Embassy. The three offices contacted and provided funding to dozens of Venezuelan institutions, political parties and organizations.
The NED’s activities in Venezuela were carried out primarily through providing funds, facilities and the invitations to visit the United States, and other means to support the political opposition to overthrow the Chavez regime and its coalition of political parties. It provides funding, training, recommendations and leadership to the opposition political parties, non-governmental organizations, media, research institutions, universities, trade unions and business owners, to engage in a project of “quiet interference” with the Chavez regime. The NED’s project has clear short, medium and long-term objectives. The project originated in the Clinton administration and has expanded since Bush assumed office. Some organizations and individuals funded by the NED were directly involved in the 2002 coup attempt, the 2003 oil worker strike and the 2004 referendum to remove Chavez, but none of the three conspiracies succeeded.

According to American media reports, the NED provided $1.13 million to a Venezuela opposition group, to Venezuela’s Center for the Dissemination of Economic Information (CEDICE) and to the Democratic Coordination, in support of their effort to “build consensus on a national agenda.” The funding was used to hold forums and for operational expenses. After the Democratic Coordination obtained funding, it formulated the “consensus on the national agenda,” i.e. the agenda for an interim government. The agenda was to overthrow the Chavez government and establish an interim government. Another Venezuela opposition group obtained $50,000 in funding for its project to collect signatures in an attempted referendum in 2004 to remove Chavez; it ultimately failed.

In the 2006 election, the NED did everything possible to block Chavez from being re-elected, again to no avail.

[1] Xinhua News Agency, December 26, 2007

Free High Quality Images Download Free Stock Images Download Free Images Free Stock Photos & Images Beautiful Free Stock Photos (CC0) Free stock photos